CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

accesslint-audit

Find and fix WCAG 2.2 accessibility issues. Two modes — report (sweep a codebase or page, produce a prioritized written report, no edits) and fix (audit→edit→verify loop on a target). Prefers direct-CDP live-DOM auditing; falls back to a browser-MCP composition or HTML-string audits.

64

Quality

78%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/accesslint-audit/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

81%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A tight, highly actionable instruction-only body with a well-validated fix-mode workflow and clear sectioning. The only drags are a redundant 'When to Use' restatement and the absence of an explicit audit_live call signature and external reference files.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Largely lean and assumes Claude's competence without explaining basics (no 'what is WCAG' padding), but the 'When to Use' section restates the frontmatter description verbatim and the Limitations boilerplate could be trimmed, keeping it just below the fully-lean 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Gives concrete, specific tool invocations like `audit_diff({ audit_name: "before" })`, `explain_rule({ id: "<rule-id>" })`, and `format: "compact"`, but the primary `audit_live` flow is named without its call signature, leaving a minor gap versus copy-paste-ready 5.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The fix-mode recipe is an explicit Baseline → Plan+apply → Verify sequence with a real validation checkpoint (`audit_diff` against the baseline), feedback loops, and concrete bail conditions ('+new is empty', 'missing from -fixed'), matching the top anchor including for a batch/editing operation.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into clearly headed sections with no nested references and easy navigation, but no bundle files exist and the full report-format template is inlined; it is well-structured yet not the cleanly split, one-level-deep-referenced ideal of a 5.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

75%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A specific, distinctive description that clearly conveys both modes and audit methods, but it lacks an explicit 'when to use' trigger clause, capping completeness. Adding a Use-when phrase with natural synonyms would lift the two lower dimensions.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when the user asks to audit or fix accessibility, a11y, WCAG, contrast, or screen-reader issues') to satisfy the completeness 'when' requirement.

Include common synonyms users actually say — 'a11y', 'contrast', 'screen reader', 'keyboard navigation' — to raise trigger-term coverage toward comprehensive.

Keep the existing specificity and distinctiveness; they are already at the top anchor.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions across both modes — 'Find and fix WCAG 2.2 accessibility issues', 'sweep a codebase or page, produce a prioritized written report', 'audit→edit→verify loop' — plus three concrete audit methods (direct-CDP, browser-MCP, HTML-string), giving comprehensive coverage rather than the minor gaps of a 4.

5 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear and detailed (both modes and audit methods), but there is no explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 3 even though the capability description is strong.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-keyword coverage ('WCAG 2.2', 'accessibility issues', 'audit', 'report', 'fix') that users would plausibly say, but it omits common synonyms and extensions a 5 would include such as 'a11y', 'contrast', or 'screen reader'.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Targets a clear niche — WCAG 2.2 accessibility auditing/fixing with specific live-DOM-vs-HTML methods — making it unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.